Recently, in a conversation that I was having on Rhizome, a colleague was mentioning that although a particular body of work wasn’t their cup of tea, that they surmised that it must have been interesting in that it must have been difficult or challenging to do. This is only one example, but it gives me a rhetorical touchstone for what seems to be a larger phenomenon.
In thinking about the creation of New Media, I’ve come across a multitude of artists who believe that the merit of a work is linked to the artist’s technical prowess and the degree of difficulty involved in the creation of the work [1]. The link of New Media Art to craft seems to elide the conversation of art and objecthood initiated in 1917 upon the fateful inscription of “R.Mutt” upon the urinal by Duchamp. And, with the force of the Conceptual Art movement in the 60’s and 70’s in working to problematize the whole idea of the art object, why does a material discourse (i.e. craft) reemerge in a de-objectified movement like New Media? This is a (somewhat) puzzling phenomenon.
The most simplistic meditation on this conversation relates to the ongoing questioning of the nature of art by individuals since the advent of Modernism, and furthermore in the Postmodern. Why do students still ask “what is art?”, and even more shocking, why did one of my classmates in grad school ask “What is ‘good’ art?” in 2005? To address this question is staggering; it suggests trying to address the American mass attitude of art as a dilettante’s folly, and not a ‘real’ job, because art is perceived as “fun”.
This seems to talk about a representational issue and a utilitarian one as well. In a society which is ruled by capitalist desires for productivity, and the “use value” of a body of work? Both are linked to a conflict between qualitative and quantitative criteria for valuation of art as culture and as a job. In my experience in the United States in 2006, mass culture materialism equates the valuation of art with its marketability and the practice of art with one’s job prospects in commercial art. At the risk of sounding Greenbergian, this might be a reassertion of the split in his essay, Avant-Garde and Kitsch. The idea that the mass market privileging of art/practice and a confusion with culture is a fracture (if not an inversion) of Greenberg’s distinction between high culture and mass market kitsch, which demands only our money, and not only our time… From this, the American work/production mythos and the utilitarian seems to be a real problem in regards to art as ‘work’…
The notion of the slaving, starving artist is truly a romantic one, and like it or not, often does not hold in the realm of high art. It also does not hold well as well in the realm of global marketing, as brands seldom make their goods, or minimize labor by subcontracting the work (i.e. Nike shoes). This holds well for artists like Koons and Kostabi, who have their works constructed. In the New Media culture, artists like Cory Arcangel have created major works by changing small amounts of code, Eduardo Kac has brilliantly recontextualized bioengineered experimental animals for mass dialogue, and Miltos Manetas employs basic corporate branding schemes with tremendous effect. In fact, in a 2005 lecture at the University of Akron, Arcangel stated that in any body of work, he tries to communicate his concepts while doing as little as possible. While the labor-oriented or utilitarian person would resent the conceptual artist as being disingenuous, contemporary art practice has been far more about context and concept than craft.
The representational issue comes from the concept that art should somehow be invariably produced for the audience as entertainment object. This reiterates itself in my college classes in my students as resentment against artists like Matthew Barney for not addressing their lives and/or culture. The radical extension of this argument might be to valorize art like that of the WPA Social Realist work of the 30’s in that it creates an idealized image of the common folk. Of course, this is a gross exaggeration, and oversimplifies a populist opposition towards “challenging” work that seeks to defy analysis.
On the other hand, the linking of craft/difficulty to qualitative judgment in New Media belies an irruption between New Media and larger art traditions. The New Media tradition comes as much from a technocapital and engineering lineage than an art one. This creates a short conceptual leap to technophilia, and a perception that more interesting work implements the latest technology and more complex systems. Perhaps the technophilic assumption may be a bit strong, but it certainly follows the research & design mentality within digital culture as described by Peter Lunenfeld in his essay Demo or Die. His description of the demo-ing of projects at the MIT Media Lab as if they were marketing proposals for new products tie creative and technical development in material terms. Perhaps this is where the link between technical virtuosity as potential valuation index for New Media art comes from.
Perhaps the valuation of craft in New Media art is also linked to the academic tradition of formalism in which there is the criteria of virtuosity in a given medium or technique. The iterative, extended exploration of form is often the criteria of academic “master”-y. In saying this, I denote the criteria for the award for a terminal degree in art, and furthermore, the consistency desired in gallery marketing and museum curation. Does this suggest the desire for media artists to be part of an ostensibly material culture, especially New Media artists, who may arguably be the most ephemeral of media artists? This is a real schism in New Media practice; the frission between objective art, capitalism, the questions that media art brought about regarding object-based art, and so on. It’s a series of questions that shift in regards to context and audience.
I hope that in these rambling musings on New Media and craft that some issues may come to the fore that spark conversation. I think that considering the history of 20th century contemporary art, I am still surprised that issues of craft still emerge in the media arts, especially when they are so close to a Conceptualist tradition. But in their defense, I have also made many of these assertions, not against any personal dispute any appreciation for virtuosity, but phenomenologically from my observations in regards to the contemporary art history as I know it of the last 90 years. As usual thanks for reading, and I hope there’s something of use to you.
Valuation of Art
"Why do students still ask “what is art?”, and even more shocking, why did one of my classmates in grad school ask “What is ‘good’ art?” in 2005?"
Actually those questions are what I call "dumb discourse" or perhaps thoughtless thinking. The more interesting question is, "What creates value in art?" Any analysis of globalism must take into account "the market." I also wonder about an "anti-market" somewhat in the manner of anti-art.
You refer to Duchamp's Urinal which was entered into the 1917 Society of Independant Artists unjuried exhibition show under the pseudonym of "R.Mutt." The piece was rejected as being not art.
The point is that some people equate value with "labor value." This is true for New Media as much as old media. The other part is that the market and the objects in circulation as well as the goods and services of the art world create a use value. This might be equated to Wittgenstein's maxims that,"the meaning of a word is it's meaning and the meaning of a word is it's use." What becomes interesting is if you substitute value for meaning.